Truth Magazine

It is amazing the publicity presently being given to psychics in our society. One commercial asks, “Have you called those other psychic lines only to be left with an empty feeling? Well, you deserve better. Call the ‘Psychic Readers Network’ and speak to a psychic who really cares.” Another one asks, “Why are so many people calling Walter Mercado’s psychic hotline?” Then, after some testimonials from people who say they have financially profited from the insights offered by the advertized psychic, it says, “Need help making money? Join the ‘circle of vision’ by dialing the number on your screen.”

What then is a psychic, and what kind of activity do they engage in?

Webster defines the word psychic: “1. A person who is supposedly sensitive to forces beyond the physical world.

2. A spiritual medium” (New Uni- versal Unabridged Dictionary 1954). Concerning the works they claim to perform, the above cited commercials made claims that their psychics could foretell the future and interpret dreams. Another asserted ability of psychics is seen in the recent news stories about the first lady’s alleged contact with Eleanor Roosevelt. In downplaying the incident, a White House staffer said, “To describe it as a consultation with psychics is to try to put it in the wrong frame” (Stars and Stripes, June 24, 1996). Hence, we see that our society views contacting the dead as a work of a psychic.

The question that concerns God’s people is, “What does the Bible say about consulting psychics?” Let us now turn our attention to it.

The Old Testament: Deuteronomy 18:10-11

In the above text God’s Old Testament people are warned about various secret arts and practices. Please note the meaning of each word from this text below:

A. Divination:  Brown-Driver-Briggs (BDB, hereafter) simply has “divination” (890); Webster defines the word: “the act of divining; the act or practice of trying to foretell future events or the unknown by means of the occult” (Ibid., 538)

B. Observer of times:  “practice soothsaying . . . but original meaning dubious” (BDB, 778); possibly “reading and interpretation of cloud patterns” (Theological Word- book of the Old Testament [T.W.O.T.] II:685). The meaning of this word is uncertain.

C. Enchanter: “practice divination, divine, observe signs” (BDB, 638).

D. Witch: “practice sorcery” (BDB, 506); “practice magic” (Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament VII:361).

E. Charmer: “v. tie magic knots, charm. . . . n. spell” (BDB 287-288).

F. Consulter with familiar spirits: “consult” is used of inquiring of the Lord (1 Sam. 23:2; 30:8); BDB defines it, “necromancer” (15).

G. Wizard: from “know;” “is also used of one’s relation to the divine, whether acquaintance with other gods . . . or with Jehovah. . . . ‘to  know’ . . . is esoteric knowledge not available to the ordinary person.” (Hebrew word for ‘wizard,’ sw] always occurs parallel to [witch]. It may be a description of a [witch] or it may be the masculine counterpart,” T.W.O.T. I:366-367).

H. Necromancer, two words: “to seek, consult, inquire of” (BDB, 205); E.g., “enquire of God” (1 Sam. 9:9; 1 Kgs. 22:8); “to die” (BDB, 559). Hence, “consult the dead.”

As one can see, these words are very similar in meaning and we should expect the works of those involved in the practice such things to be similar. That this is so can be seen from 1 Samuel 28:6-11 where Saul consulted the witch at Endor: The woman is said to have a “familiar spirit” (v. 7); Saul asks her to “divine” for him (v. 8), and “bring up Samuel” (v. 8) (necromancy); the woman speaks of herself in connection with “wizards” (v. 9). When we compare the above definitions with the claimed activities of psychics we can see that their work would have caused them to be condemned under the Old Testament.

The New Testament

1. People involved in “psychic-like” activities.

a. The wise men (Matt. 2:1-2). The word magus rendered “wise men” is defined, “a wise man and priest, who was expert in astrology, interpretation of dreams and various other secret arts” (Arndt and Gingrich 484).

b. Simon the sorcerer (Acts 8:9-11).  The meaning of sorcery is, “magic, magic arts” (Ibid., 484).

c. Those who used “magical arts” (Acts 19:13-20).

Defined as “of things belonging to magic” (Ibid., 646).

All these people confessed the superiority of Christ.

2. Warnings.

a. Gal. 5:19-21, “sorcery.” This word is from the Greek word pharmakeia. It is defined, “sorcery, magic, magic arts” (Ibid.,   854). William Barclay says that the word took on “the meaning of sorcery and witchcraft. It is, for instance, repeatedly used of the Egyptian sorcerers and charmers who competed with Moses when Pharaoh would not let Israel go (Exod. 7.11, 8.18; Wisd. 7.12; 18.13)” (Flesh and Spirit 36).

b. Rev. 21:8, “sorcerer.” This word means “mixer of poisons, magician.” (Arndt and Gingrich  854).

c. 2 John 9. One who looks to a psychic for information is sinning because they are looking to a source other than God for guidance. In the Old Testament, God said his people were to “hearken” to him and not to the sources listed under our first point (Deut. 18:14-15).

The warnings in these verses should cause everyone to see the sinfulness of psychics and their work.

Conclusion

Deuteronomy 18 shows that such activities as psychics are involved in are the works of godless people (vv. 9, 12, 14). This is a comment on psychics and those in our society today who consult them. They are godless and their works are the works of darkness. Let us all join in pointing people to the Bible as the only source of information on spiritual things. 

Some years have now passed since I obtained a copy of the article written by brother Ed Harrell titled, “The Emergence of the Church of Christ Denomination.” I was deeply moved by what I was reading, and when I came to the end of his study and the conclusion he reached, I was astounded.

I had for years sought a solution to stop the steady movement among brethren that was leading us farther and farther away from the simplicity that is in Jesus Christ. I began to preach the gospel in the midst of the Great Depression, about 1930. I had just graduated from college with a major in Latin. In 1934, I married Pauline Ross, my wife of 64 years, and a year later we moved to Marietta, Oklahoma where I began to be supported by the small congregation there.

As brother C.R. Nichol told me, I was green. But he said, “Stay green, because green things grow.” I have never forgotten his timely counsel and at 85 still recognize that it is true. I sat at his feet and listened to his great wisdom. Throughout my years as a full-time preacher at various congregations, he was the visiting preacher for at least one meeting.

I could spend a lot of time remembering, but one thing sticks in my heart. We traveled by train whenever possible in those years. I always took him to the depot, and he never told me goodbye without crying. I puzzled over that for many years. Why would he cry? Finally, I reached the age he was when we worked together, and I knew. He did not know that he would ever see me again on this Earth. “The hoary head is a crown of glory, if it be found in the way of righteousness.”

But I tell you this for just one reason. C.R. Nichol, R.L. Whiteside, Joe Blue, J.D. Tant, and many others were in that time bringing their work to an end here upon the Earth. They, like Paul, had fought the good fight. I was just learning, and to me it was a gift far greater than I then knew. Let me tell you about it.

In those days, there was not a meeting house of the brethren in every town. Even in the larger population centers, there was likely to be only one or two meeting houses. Many of them knew nothing of a local preacher. And, if a preacher lived there, he did not do all the preaching he did in the congregation there. They supported him but did not require his constant presence. He was truly an evangelist.

In those days, we had what were called preachers’ meetings. One congregation invited the preachers in the area to spend a good part of a week as their guests and study with them. Planned subjects were discussed by those present. They ate together and slept in the homes of brethren who lived there. Much good was accomplished in the matter of learning more about the truth. And there was much time for visiting and relating to each other their preaching experiences.

These meetings I loved, when I could sit and listen to these old soldiers of the cross tell of their sometimes thrilling experiences. One thing always stood out, to which all agreed: They never left home without money enough to buy a ticket home. But they went in spite of that fact.

I am sure they had read and absorbed the experiences of the great Apostle to the Gentiles. In this manner, one person, even one family, could become the means for the beginning of a strong and faithful church. Many never saw a gospel preacher, except perhaps once a year at meeting time.

Many of us who were younger sought to follow their example. If preachers of today wish to know why they have it so good, I would direct them to this bit of history. Brother R. Brannan of Marietta, Oklahoma was kind enough to pay my expenses to Freed-Hardeman College for a two-week study period. We were all young and with little experience. I’ll not forget his opening remarks to us.

He said, “Boys, when you go out to look for a place to work, don’t look for a place where you can sit down in a tub of butter. Look for an opportunity to save souls.” I went home with that ringing in my ears. As a result, I spent my last years as a minister preaching the gospel mostly to brethren, and at home with a strong congregation.

Others may not feel that way, but I had a different upbringing. I wanted to be an evangelist in the true sense, taking the gospel to the lost. So, the last years of my active work were spent as an elder of a small congregation, trying to ground them in the faith once delivered to the saints.

Now I am saying to you, “I remember.” After open heart surgery and a stroke that has left me mostly a cripple, I await my Lord’s will.

I have told you my own story, not because it is anything remarkable. I am sure there are many who have and are now doing a great deal more. But, as some would express it, “I wanted you to know where I come from.”

All this prepares me for commenting on brother Ed’s wise words that the only remedy is just to start over with a “thus saith the Lord” for everything. I have spent much time study- ing the history of the periods we call the reformation and the restoration, the latter of which took place here in America, and the other in Europe and the British Isles.

I think it is clear that: (1) Reformation never gets us back to the original position. It may improve, but it never gets us where we must be; (2) Restoration is the only way we can return to true position  — book, chapter, and verse.

This takes us just where we want to be. What has the Lord said about our faith and practice? Having learned this, let us be content.

I feel sure this is what was intended in the article. But how to accomplish this is the task before us.

Are we, having learned this, willing to undertake it? Wisdom that is from above, with Paul’s instruction to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 16:13), is our answer: “Watch ye, stand fast in the faith, quit you like men, be strong.”

But, you are ready to ask, “Is it possible in our time to do what they did in the days of David Lipscomb and of C.R. Nichol?”

All this takes a great deal of commitment, courage and above all, trust in the Lord. And, brother preacher, I am not suggesting that you do it. I am just saying this: “It can be done in our time.”

We are now faced with a world filled with every kind of evil man can devise. Riches and pleasure seem to be the only goals of life. The home, the basis of all stable society, is virtually destroyed. Paul’s description of what existed in the world in his day is being repeated in ours. And, to complicate it beyond measure, we are faced with those in the church who have joined the cavalcade.

How much difference do you see in the daily lifestyle of some in the church and those in the world? The marriage commitment is despised, and all that it represents is disregarded. Reform the church. You try it.

But I have said enough. However, I can still remember.

“The Lord bless thee and keep thee; the Lord make His face to shine upon thee and be gracious unto thee; the Lord lift up His countenance upon thee and give thee peace.” This I earnestly pray.

“Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes will He really find faith on earth?” (Luke 18:8).

Do you have problems accepting the biblical account of the birth of Jesus? Are you persuaded that relevant facts or information would lead to doubt of the biblical account? If so, I say as the Apostle Paul said, “Therefore I beg you to hear me patiently” (Acts 26:3).

In thinking about whether information is factual or evidence relevant, we should ask, does anyone deny, oppose, or reject the validity of such evidence or information and upon what basis? We should also conclude that it would be irrational to doubt evidence when there isn’t a trace of objective opposition to it. Upon such evidence, then we are able to draw conclusions from this undisputed evidence.

The question for us in considering the Bible’s account of the birth of Christ is, “Is there such undisputed evidence?” To answer this, we must determine if Luke (writer of biblical books Luke and Acts) is a credible source. Luke makes reference to 32 countries, 54 cities, and nine islands without any mistakes. Without encyclopedias, he has given accurately titles of officials that often changed over time and has recorded event after event that has been confirmed by inscriptional data or other findings. Even where he was thought to have made mistakes (reference to Lysanias, Luke 3:1, and Quirinius as governor of Syria, Luke 2:1), he has been proven accurate by forthcoming discoveries. (See F.F. Bruce New Testament Documents for more information.)

It has been said that Sir William Ramsay is regarded as one of the greatest archaeologists ever to have lived. Concerning Luke he says, “Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy . . . this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians. Luke’s history is unsurpassed in respect of its trustworthiness.” Can any deny these facts?

Having considered Luke’s trustworthiness and confirmation, we should ask, “How much confirmation does a writer have to have before he is considered a historian?” If a writer such as Luke is judged to be a historian, then would not his writing of an event be historical evidence that this event did occur as recorded? If we say that the writings of such a person are not historical, then why do we accept other writings (History of Herodotus 488-428 BC) as historical when they don’t have as much confirmation? If we consider Herodotus to be a historian but not Luke, the only conclusion we can make of this is that we have a bias against one. Then it would not be our scholarship that causes us to arrive at this non-historical conclusion, but our prejudice against any writings that attribute anything to the supernatural.

Some “scholars” have even suggested that Luke was wrong about the “worldwide” census. Did the census take place or not? “The first three Gospels were written at a time when many were alive who could remember the things that Jesus said and did” (F.F. Bruce, New Testament Documents 13). And hardly no critic, atheist, agnostic, or  otherwise would deny that Luke did write shortly after the events he describes. Luke states his purpose for writing the book of Luke, “that you may know the certainty of those things . . .” If this census did not happen, Luke (so accurate at all other points), writing in hope that people would believe that Jesus is the Christ, tries to accomplish his objective by reporting an event that all the world would know did not take place. What could make a person believe that Luke was guilty of such a blunder?

A census was taken every fourteen years and in A.D. 104 a census as Luke described took place which shows these censuses were not uncommon (Joseph P. Free, Archaeology and Bible History 284-287). Who can deny these facts? During Augustus’ reign, “The loss of citizenship was the punishment of the man who failed to have his name enrolled” (Num De nis Fustel De Coulonges, The Ancient City 162). We know a census did take place around 8 B.C. and there have been other censuses taking several years to complete. So it would be easy to see how the census of 8 B.C. may be the census that Luke described (When Critics Ask 383-385).

It is also noteworthy that the birth of Christ is less significant in lower age groups according to a national survey by Barna Research Group Ltd. Obviously people today believe less in the birth of Christ because they believe less in the documents that reveal that birth.

Could the reason for this be that many people especially our young are being exposed to only one negative view of Christ’s birth? Could Josh McDowell be right when he says that much of the research and many of the writings quoted in his book (Evidence that Demands a Verdict) are not available at most secular universities? Therefore students and faculty are often limited in their examination of the subjects covered in the classroom and in his book according him.

Wouldn’t it be a shame if the real reason for this unavailability is simply that on philosophical grounds, credible alternative positions were excluded? Would this be education or indoctrination?

A student wrote to Billy Graham, “I have been taking a course in religion at college. My professor claims that the Bible is full of contradictions and factual errors, and that it is a book like any other human book. If this is so, why should I rely on it for a knowledge of spiritual truth?” She and others should know that “following the modern Historical approach I would never come to believe in the resurrection of Jesus as Savior and Lord” (Josh McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdict 2 ) and I might add to that no acceptance of the birth of Christ by such a philosophical approach. The reason is that the average “modern” historian rules out any reference to the supernatural as being unhistorical, or they would say a “myth.” They have already determined the limits of their results beforehand!

The college professor said that “the Bible is full of contradictions and factual errors.” Is the Bible “full” of such? “In addition to illuminating the Bible, Archaeology has confirmed countless passages which have been rejected by critics as unhistorical or contradictory to known facts” (Joseph P. Free, Archaeology and Bible History). If a pas- sage of Scripture is contradictory to a “known fact,” they both can’t be truth. Acceptance of one is the denial of the other. If a passage is confirmed as true by archaeological discoveries, then the contradictory “known fact” could not really be a fact. Just how many times do you suppose these critics used these errroneous “known facts” to destroy the faith of some in the Scriptures in the name of education? How many other “known facts” contradictory to various passages are just waiting to be removed into a nonfactual category by future discoveries? But until this happens, these little “known facts” will be used to destroy the faith of our young. And these critics are just as sure of these “known facts” as they were the others before these “facts” were disproven by evidence.

Can any deny what Joseph Free said? If not, then the past is full of illustrations of discoveries establishing Scripture and disproving interpretations called “known facts” by some. Do you ever wonder what do these critics use to come up with these “known facts”? Perhaps it was their philosophy that the Bible evolved from men and did not come from God! If this philosophy brought us errors in the past, shall we continue to trust it today to guide us? God has given us a guide, “your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path” (Ps. 119:105).

The Bible is never wrong! It is God’s word. If any evidence seems to conflict with Scriptures, we either have a false interpretation of the evidence or a false interpretation of the Scriptures. God made the world and gave us the Bible through error-free guided men. How can they disagree? So a man may rationally believe that Jesus on earth healed, walked on water, and arose from the dead to ascend to the right hand of the Father and will one day return. But before he did any of that, he was born of a virgin, in a manger, during a census just like the Bible says.

Had the Greek word baptisma — “baptisms” never been associated with a disputed religious practice, there never would have been any question concerning its meaning and proper English translation. However, by the time the first English translations of the Bible were made in the sixteenth century, ecclesiastical practice had already established “baptism” as a mystical, sacred religious sacrament, administered by pouring, sprinkling, or immersion. Obviously, no Bible could be allowed to translate baptisma as “immersion.” Such would undermine the doctrine of the ecclesiastical hierarchy and centuries of tradition. In fact, the Catholic Church and Church of England (among others) required that certain “ecclesiastical terms” be retained (such as “baptism” and “church”) in order to conform to church doctrine. In other words, church doctrine was to determine what the Bible taught, not vice-versa. In this article (and others to follow), which is dedicated to the special theme of baptism, we demonstrate that there are four clear ways by which anybody can see for themselves what this family of words really means. These proofs are to be seen in how the Greeks themselves used the word (1) in classical Greek, (2) in the Septuagint (i.e., the Greek Old Testament), (3) in contemporary Greek literature, and (4) the Greek New Testament itself. Most of these writings are unrelated to “Christian baptism” and therefore offer objective evidence as to the true meaning of the term.

In every case and without exception, the meaning of baptisma is a “dipping,” “plunging under,” “immersion,” “submersion,” “soaking,” etc. Never is any other action, such as sprinkling or pouring, included in the definition of the word. Of course, sometimes the word is used figuratively, that is, not of physical immersion in some physical substance. But even then, the concept is that of immersion, such as “immersed in grief,” “overwhelmed with anxiety,” or “in over your head.”

It should be very clear that baptisma means “immersion” and should be translated as such — indeed it would have been, had prevailing doctrinal practices not been invented by men. If one would substitute “immersion” (the proper translation) for “baptism,” he would see how foolish denominational practice is — “Sprinkling is just one way of immersing!” By definition, it is a contradiction!

Nowhere in the New Testament do we find anything except immersion practiced. The New Testament nowhere teaches sprinkling, pouring, or anything else as a suitable or alternate mode of “baptism.” But we are often told that sprinkling, pouring, and immersing are just different, equally acceptable ways of baptizing. The question is — how do we know sprinkling and pouring are acceptable? It would have to be upon some other basis besides what the word means (because no one ever defined or used the word baptisma in this way) or what the Bible teaches (because it nowhere mentions sprinkling or pouring), so how do I know?

What if I started teaching people that in order for them to be saved, they could just hop on one foot and cluck like a chicken? And if someone objects that baptism has to do with water, we’ll just make that a wet chicken. I could tell folks that it’s just another, perfectly acceptable means of “baptizing.” If not, why not? Would you say that that’s not what the word means? or that no one ever used the word in that way? or that the Bible teaches no such thing?

Do these objections sound familiar? Let’s stick to what the word simply means and to what the Word simply says: “Repent and be immersed . . . for the forgiveness of sins” (Acts 2:38).